June 8, 1902

I was late with my reply to your letter, Vladimir Ilyich, and I apologize for it: I've been going through such a period that I couldn't properly compose a letter — my thoughts kept dancing about.

The plan of the campaign against Plekhanov seems to me to be the following: above all, we must secure acceptance from the Zurich people of the resolution proposed by Berg [Martov],¹) and to achieve this we must exert pressure on them by submitting the resolution with a declaration on behalf of us three; a declaration which would make it perfectly clear that on this question we will not give way, even if we had to break with Plekhanov — what happened to one today could happen to another tomorrow, and we wish to secure ourselves once and for all from Plekhanov's excesses. It would be good to bring this declaration to Plekhanov's attention as well.*) I don't think it will come to a break, but in any case one must be prepared for the worst: it's impossible to work all the same amid internal cataclysms, consequently in the worst case it's better to separate or partition things than to endure this.

To send the article on the cut-off lands to be printed without securing the approval of an absolute majority, it seems to me unwise — this will set against us not only P. B. [Akselrod], but also Vera Ivanovna [Zasulich], and she, poor thing, must already be suffering enough. It's better to try to exert pressure than to appear formally in the wrong (the more favorable for us three interpretation of the agreement of Oct[ober] 6, 1900, is inopportune at this moment).²)

*) Just as with our previous declarations. It's important that Plekhanov know with complete certainty our (all three of us) full solidarity.

Furthermore: it seems to me that the draft constitution change proposed by Berg [Martov] is more suitable than yours³) in the sense that for the future it will preserve for us a certain control over Plekhanov — up to now we haven't exercised it, but who can vouch that we won't be forced sometime to exercise it with respect to him?

I'm very ashamed that I was late with my reply to you, and events may perhaps have already overtaken this letter of mine. Please, write back about what happens next.

The letters from Akselrod and Lev Grigoryevich Deich⁴) I very much disliked: Akselrod clearly has gotten out of the habit of applying the usual measure to Plekhanov's actions and doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. He's also rather displeased with my note! You can't get it into his head!

What's going on with your health, my friend? Instead of the Paris lecture⁵) you should go somewhere to rest, and also in London you should seriously take care of your health. If your nerves are frayed, they must be fixed without delay — even with hydrotherapy if necessary.

Soon I'll know where I'll spend the rest of the summer, and then I'll write you.

The Calf [Struve] has put out a declaration "from the editor" about the publication of "Osvobozhdeniye" — the motives are the same as in "R. N. S."⁶) The Radicals will hardly be tempted.

I shake your hand warmly.

---

[Inscription by Vladimir Ilyich at the top of the letter:]

To Berg [Martov]. Return this letter as soon as possible without fail.

*) The text of Martov's resolution is unknown to us. Probably it coincided with Martov's proposal, which he set forth in his letter to Akselrod of June 8, 1902: "Now the main question remains: how to avoid in the future the possibility of such an aggravation of relations on the grounds of differences in shades of our views, which undoubtedly exist among us? I think that in the interests of 'internal order' it would be best to establish that henceforth an author of an article (once he is a member of the collegium) who has not taken into account the indications of the majority should have the right to print the article in whatever form he wishes with a caveat about the majority's disagreement with him, and, consequently, with the provision that this majority should have the right to present counter-articles in Zarya itself. It seems to me that it will be better for the cause if the polemical heat occasioned by such (far from dangerous) disagreements be displayed immediately in print (of course, one will have to keep the polemic within bounds), than on the margins of the manuscript, occasioning only conflicts." What's your opinion on this? V. Iv. [Zasulich] agrees with me on this point. I don't think it would be dangerous for us to show the public that on some agrarian question or question about markets we have disagreements." ("Letters of P. B. Akselrod and Yu. O. Martov," vol. I, p. 67.)

2) The agreement of October 6, 1900 — this is the agreement on the publication of "Zarya" and "Iskra," concluded between the "Emancipation of Labor" Group and the editorial board of "Iskra" in the persons of Lenin and Potresov in Zurich (See "Lenin Miscellany" I, pp. 70—71). According to paragraph 4 of this agreement, in case of disagreement between the editorial board and the "Emancipation of Labor" Group, the editorial board is obliged to print in full a separate opinion of the Group or of each of its members individually.

3) Apparently, V. I. Lenin proposed a more decisive draft constitution than that proposed by Martov, but what it consisted of could not be determined, since we do not have at our disposal either the draft itself or letters from V. I. Lenin to A. N. Potresov setting it forth.

4) Which specific letters of P. B. Akselrod and L. G. Deich A. N. Potresov is referring to could not be established. One of Akselrod's letters to Lenin concerning the question raised by Potresov is printed under No. 103 in the third "Lenin Miscellany" (p. 419).

5) The intended lecture by Lenin in Paris. See note 1 to letter 10.

6) At the beginning of June 1902, P. B. Struve issued a declaration about the publication under his editorship of the journal of liberal opposition "Osvobozhdeniye," the first issue of which appeared on July 1 (June 18), 1902. In his preface, signed with the letters R. N. S., to a note by S. Yu. Witte "Autocracy and Zemstvo," Struve expresses the demands of democratic opposition in the words: "rights and an authoritative all-Russian zemstvo." Such demands were also expressed in the "declaration from the editor" and in No. 1 of "Osvobozhdeniye," where it was said: "we propose to unite those groups of society which have no opportunity to find an outlet for their indignant feelings either in class or in revolutionary struggle."